phainomena

PHAINOMENA XXV/98-99
THE HORIZONS OF EMBODIMENT
from animals by a subtle differentia specifica (Toadvine 2007: 26.). 3
2. Interanimality
162
The fundamental role of the lived body (Leib) for enacting intentionality
and intersubjectivity (or as Merleau-Ponty puts it: intercorporeality) has
already been thematized by Husserl. The Leib is not a mere body-object, but a
fundamental starting point, the “zero-point of orientation” (Hua 4: 158), and
the basic “I can” (ibid.: 253) , 4 through which I experience and engage with
all other things and living beings from the very beginning of my ontogenesis.
It is not (de)limited by the skin (and thus not co-extensive with the Körper),
but is rather in a dynamic interdependence with a certain milieu or Umwelt,
as emphasized by Merleau-Ponty (1966: 132–134) drawing on Uexküll. This
milieu is not a lifeless field, but is fused with and co-constituted by living
(bodily) beings – not least animals as part of co-existence. Therefore, the
idea of a discrete, independent subject that enters social relations only
subsequently (as famously propounded by, e.g., Hobbes and Rousseau) is in
sharp contrast with the phenomenological idea of the bodily self.
In what follows, I will further elaborate upon the idea of a bodily self
in a primal interrelation with Others by drawing particularly on Merleau-
Ponty’s concept of intercorporeality (1964: 168) and on his idea of being
located “within” animality instead of vis-à-vis the animals (e.g., Merleau-
Ponty 2003: 227). An interspecies co-existence and being-co-determined-by
the Others precedes not only our conscious decisions to constitute or enter
3 According to Heinämaa (2014), this account can also be found in some of Husserl’s
writings – but only to a certain extent. Animals are part of the co-existence we as humans
are inevitably immersed in, but Husserl always emphasises at the same time the humananimal
contrast that subverts the role of animals in sociality. As Heinämaa points out, in
Husserl animals lack language, knowledge regarding natality and mortality, and they lack
traditionality (ibid.: 139; see also Hua 15: 159, Fn. 1). Thus, they are not to be considered
as co-constituters of the cultural-historical world, but instead as determinants of coexistence
only on a pre-cultural level (Heinämaa 2014: 163).
4 Any perception, any experience is dependent on the lived body and its immanent
kinesthetic potentiality. It is the very condition respectively ability to move, perceive,
and to act.